|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 83
Appendix C
Meetings and Participants
1. Program Initiation: Planning Meeting and Participants, June 1999
2. Meeting Schedule of Parent Committee and Four Panels
- Agenclas of All Committee and Panel Meetings
83
OCR for page 84
OCR for page 85
APPENDIX C
PLANNING MEETING PROGRAM
Tuesclay, June 22, 1999
8:30 AM
Welcome
M. R. C. Greenwood, University of California, Santa Cruz
8:45 AM
Introductory Remarks
9:00 AM
A. Why Do Another Research-Doctorate Study
85
The reactions to the past two studies of Research-Doctorate Programs by the NRC were both positive and negative. Some
institutions were critical of the objective and/or subjective measures used to characterize their programs, but at the same time
they found the data from the studies and the rankings of their programs useful in conducting their own analyses and assess-
ments. The rationale for doing another study lies in finding better measures to describe doctoral programs and to collect data
on these measures that will better serve institutions and doctoral education. Some general issues that should guide the design
and implementation of the next study are:
· The value derived by educational institutions from the results of past studies.
· The relevance of the data from past studies to the mission of educational programs.
· The use of objective measures to support the reputational ratings and vise versa.
· Balancing the measurement of the quality of the research faculty and the effectiveness of the educational program.
This opening session will address these and other general issues.
Presenters: Jules LaPidus, Council of Graduate Schools
Stanley Ikenberry, American Council for Education
Joseph Bordogna, National Science Foundation
10:45 AM
B. Value and Purpose of Program Assessments: Users and Insight
The audience for research-doctorate reports has expanded over time. While it is primarily used by universities in planning
their academic programs, researchers have used the ratings and the objective measures to analyze different aspects of doctoral
education, government agencies used the data to develop programs and allocating resources, and students use the rankings to
select programs for graduate study. Understanding how the study is used and what measures are of interest to different groups
would assist in guiding the design of the next study.
Presenters: Lawrence Martin, State University of New York, Stony Brook
Lesley Lydell, University of Minnesota
Gary Walters, Ohio State Board of Regents
1:00 PM
C. Assessing Quality: Validity and Importance of Reputational Measures
Some of the criticisms of past research-doctorate studies have been directed at the over emphasis placed on the reputational
measures and inconsistencies between these measures and objective measures. Neither changing the reputational measures
for the last study nor using a different methodology for the Survey of Graduate Faculty were considered in order to gain
consistency with the 1982 study. This session will try to place in perspective the role of reputational measures in measuring the
quality of programs and to determine ways in which this measure can be enhanced.
Presenters: Brendan Maher, Harvard University
Jonathan Cole, Columbia University
OCR for page 86
86
2:00 PM
D. Assessing Quality: Through Objective Measures
APPENDIX C
In addition to reputational measures, data on publication, research grants, and awards have also been used in past study to
assess the quality of programs. The measures for assessing faculty quality have been improved over successive studies, but
they are still over shadowed by the reputational measures. How can these measures be improved to better represent the quality
of the research-doctoral programs, and how can these measures, together with the reputational measures, be analyzed and
presented to give a more informed estimate of program quality? The introduction of new measures will also be a majorfocus
of the next study.
Presenters: Stephen Stigler, University of Chicago
Hugh Graham, Vanderbilt University
3:15 PM
E. Finding the Right Field Taxonomy
. ... ..
Since the basis for the study is the identification of programs within an institution, independent of the academic unit which
houses the program, it is important to find a taxonomy and a means for identifying programs that are consistent across all
institutions. Not having a well defined taxonomy results in incomplete faculty rosters, misinterpretations of program content,
incompletefield coverage, and in general the possible assessment of a program that has no relationship to the actual program.
For the last study this was particularly true for the biological sciences, since the descriptive names did not match programs at
their institutions. In addition to the problems with the biological sciences, there were instances at some institutions where a
field may had multiple programs that were identified separately or jointly, depending on the Institutional Coordinator's
interpretation of the taxonomy. There were also instances when the study field name did not fit the terminology used at the
institution and a program was submitted which was inconsistent with other programs in thefields. For the next study it may be
appropriate to revisit the taxonomy used in the biological sciences and in some other broadfields.
Presenters: Thomas Fox, Harvard University
Norman Bradburn, National Opinion Research Center
4:30 PM
F. Expanding the Focus to Industry and Government
Finding ways to factor the assessment of employment sectors outside academe into the study was of interest to the last study
committee, but they did not have the time or the resources to find appropriate measures. One measure might be the identifica-
tion of programs that industry or government looks to for recruiting graduates or another could be a measure industry/
university research cooperation. Another topic of interest might be an exploration of new measures that would better suit the
needs of the non-academic sector.
Presenters: Stephen Lukasik, Independent Consultant
5:30 PM
Adjournment for the Day
OCR for page 87
APPENDIX C
Wecinesclay, June 23, 1999
8:30 AM
G. Incorporating Interdisciplinary Programs, Emerging Fields and Other Fields
87
The interdisciplinary sciences are playing a more and more important role in graduate education and new fields are develop-
ing that in ten years may be larger than some that are now part of the study. Finding ways to identify these programs and collect
consistent information across institutions would enhance the next study. In addition, some disciplines not included in the last
study, since they did not meet the degree production conditions specified by the study committee, have asked to be considered
for the next study. With the understanding that interdisciplinary, emerging or smallerfields may not have the critical mass to
provide valid reputational measures, is it possible to include them and still obtain meaningful evaluations.
Presenters: Debra Stewart, North Carolina State University
9:30 AM
H. Outcomes and Process of Graduate Education
One of the main deficiencies of past studies has been the inability to measure the effectiveness of graduate education. The
effectiveness question on the National Survey of Graduate Faculty does not provide useful information, since very few individu-
als in the survey have direct knowledge of the graduate programs at a range of institutions. Finding objective measures that
will provide this information is an important goal for the next study. Another aspect of graduate education, aside from the
scholarship of the faculty and the outcomes of graduates, are the activities within graduate programs that can greatly enhance
its quality, such as counseling, teaching instruction, and internship programs. Is it possible to measure these activities?
Presenters: Joseph Cerny, University of California, Berkeley
John Wiley, University of Wisconsin
10:45 AM
I. Matching Measures to Program Missions
Within a given field, all research-doctoral programs do not have the same mission or educational philosophy. The purpose of
some may be the education offuture faculty at institutions similar to their own and others may focus their educational program
on serving local industries or government facilities. The mission of programs at an institution is also tied to that of their pier
institutions. Measuring dissimilar programs in afield against the same standards may not provide useful information. Can
measures be found that match the mission of a program and in particular, customize reputational measures that correctly
reflect the mission?
Presenters: John Vaughn, Association of American Universities
Cora Marrett, University of Massachusetts
1:00 PM
I. Customizing Measures to Field Characteristics
Some of the measures used in past studies did not provide relevant information or sufficient information to characterize
programs in specific fields. This was especially true in Arts and Humanities in the 1995 study. It is not essential that uniform
measures be used across allfields. Finding the appropriate measures will be a critical element in the next study.
Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences
Presenter: Patricia Swan, Iowa State University
Arts and Humanities
Presenter: John D'Arms, American Council of Learned Societies
OCR for page 88
88
Biological Sciences
Presenter: Robert Thach, Washington University
Engineering
Presenter: Leonard Peters, Virginia Polytechic Institute and State University
Physical Sciences and Mathematics
Presenter: Ronald Douglas, Texas A & M
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Presenter: Brian Foster, University of Nebraska
3:00 PM
Adjournment
APPENDIX C
OCR for page 89
APPENDIX C
Study of Research-Doctorate Programs in the Unitecl States
Office of Scientific and Research Personnel
National Research Council
Planning Meeting
June 22-23, 1999
Washington, D.C.
PARTICIPANTS
Richard Anderson
Somat Engineering, Inc.
Marilyn Baker
National Research Council
Joseph Bordogna
National Science Foundation
Norman Bradburn
National Opinion Research Center
Joseph Cerny
University of California, Berkeley
Jonathan Cole
Columbia University
E. William Colglazier
National Research Council
Olga Collazos
Intern, National Research Council
John D'Arms
American Council of Learned Societies
Donna Dean
National Institutes of Health
Nancy Diamond
Goucher College
Ronald Douglas
Texas A&M
Brian Foster
University of Nebraska
Thomas Fox
Harvard University
89
Hugh Graham
Vanderbilt University
M.R.C. Greenwood
University of California, Santa Cruz
Jong-on Hahm
National Research Council
Peter Henderson
National Research Council
Stanley Ikenberry
American Council on Education
Ruth Kirschstein
National Institutes of Health
Charlotte Kuh
National Research Council
Jules LaPidus
Council of Graduate Schools
Stephen Lukaski
Independent Consultant
Lesley Lydell
University of Minnesota
Brendan Maher
Harvard University
Cora Marrett
University of Massachusetts
Lawrence Martin
State University of New York, Stony Brook
David Meyer
University of California-Los Angeles
OCR for page 90
9o
Maresi Narad
University of California-Berkeley
Leonard Peters
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
George Reinhart
National Research Council
Debra Stewart
North Carolina State University
Stephen Stigler
University of Chicago
Jennifer Sutton
National Research Council
Patricia Swan
Iowa State University
APPENDIX C
Peter Syverson
Council of Graduate Schools
Orlando Taylor
Howard University
Robert Thach
Washington University
John Vaughn
Association of American Universities
Jim Voytuk
National Research Council
Garry Walters
Ohio State Board of Regents
John Wiley
University of Wisconsin
OCR for page 91
APPENDIX C
SCHEDULE FOR COMMITTEE AND PANEL ACTIVITIES
91
Date Committee/Panel Place
April 15-16, 2002 1st Full Committee Meeting Washington, D.C.
June 6-7, 2002 1St Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes Meeting
June 17, 2002 Panel on Quantitative Measures
Washington, D.C.
New York University Torch Club,
NYC
June 20-21, 2002 Panel on Taxonomy and Interdisciplinarity Washington, D.C.
5th St. Bldg
July 22, 2002 Panel on Reputational Measures and Data Presentation
Washington, D.C.
5th St. Bldg
August 1-2, 2002 2nd Full Committee Meeting Woods Hole Study Center,
Woods Hole, MA
September 5-6, 2002 2n~ Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes meeting
September 11-12, 2002 2n~ Panel on Taxonomy & Interdisciplinarity meeting
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
September 18, 2002 2n~ Panel on Reputational Measures and Data Presentation Washington, D.C.
meeting
September 19, 2002 2n~ Panel on the Review of Quantitative Measures meeting New York University
Torch Club, NYC
September30- 3rdFull Committee Meeting Washington, D.C.
October 1, 2002
March 26-28, 2003 4th Full Committee Meeting Beckman Center, Irvine, CA
July 31- 5th Full Committee Meeting Woods Hole Study Center,
August 1, 2003 Woods Hole, MA
OCR for page 92
92
Committee to Examine the Methoclology for the Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs
First Meeting: April 15-16, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
Monday, April 15 Green 104
9:15-9:45 AM Bias Discussion - C. Kuh
10:00-11:00 AM Key issues: Sponsors
Betsey Kuhn - United States Department of Agriculture
Judith Ramelly - National Science Foundation
Wendy Baldwin - National Institutes of Health
11:00 AM -12:00 PM Key Issues: Conference Board of Associated Research Councils
Bruce Alberts - National Research Council
David Ward - American Council on Education
1:00-2:00 PM Key issues: Higher Education organizations
Debra Stewart - Council of Graduate Schools
Peter McGrath - National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
Nils Hasselmo - Association of American Universities
2:00-3:30 PM Key issues: Other Interested Groups
Phyllis Franklin - Modern Language Association
Sidney Golub - Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Frank Huband - American Society for Engineering Education
Robert Townsend - American Historical Association.
Howard Silver - Consortium of Social Science Associations
EXECUTIVE SESSION
3:45-5:00 PM Committee discussion of key issues and study organization
Tuesday, April 16
EXECUTIVE SESSION
8:00-10:00 AM Study Organization and NRC Report Review
10:00 AM-1:00 PM Panel Tasks
APPENDIX C
OCR for page 93
APPENDIX C
Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes
First panel meeting: June 6-7, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
Committee Statement of Task and Charge to Student Processes and Outcomes Panel
Issues
Sample Survey Instruments
The National Doctoral Program Survey
Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation
Ph.D.' s Ten Years Later
National Survey of Student Engagement
Graduate Student Exit Questionnaires
Articles
93
"National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of Psychometric Properties" George D. Kuh
Re-envisioning the Ph.D., "What Concerns Do We Have?" Jody D. Nyquist and Bettina J. Woodford
"The National Doctoral Program Survey: Executive Summary" National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
OCR for page 94
94
Panel on Review of Quantitative Measures
First panel meeting: June 17, 2002
New York, NY
Agencla
Monday, June 17, 2002
9:00-9:30 AM
9:30-10:15 AM
10:45 AM-12:00 PM
12:00-2:30 PM
2:30-3:30 PM
4:00-5:00 PM
APPENDIX C
Introduction and Bias Discussion
Faculty, Student, and Institutional Characteristics
Measures of Productivity
Field Specific Data
Data Sources and Data Collection Issues
Wrap-up and Issues for Investigation
OCR for page 95
APPENDIX C
Panel on Taxonomy and Interclisciplinarity
First panel Meeting: June 20-21, 2002
Washington, DC
Agencla
Thursday, June 20, 2002
9:00-9:30 AM
9:30-10:30 AM
10:45 AM -12:00 PM
12:45-3:30 PM
Bias Discussion
Study Fields Selection: Taxonomy
Study Fields Selection: New Fields
Program Specific Issues
3:45-5:00 PM Interdisciplinarity
Friday, June 21, 2002
8:00-9:45 AM
10:00 AM -12:00 PM
95
Small Field/Program Issues
Wrap-up and Items for Additional Investigation
OCR for page 96
96
Panel on Reputational Measures and Presentation of Data
July 22, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
9:00-10:00 AM
10:00-10:45 AM
11:00 AM -12:30 PM
12:30-1:30 PM
Introductions and bias discussion
Measuring the Scholarly Reputation of Programs
Alternative Approaches to Measuring Reputation
Working lunch: Recommendations for Pilot Testing
1:30-2:45 PM Data Presentation
3:00-4:00 PM
Data Presentation Alternatives
4:00-5:00 PM Recommendations to Full Committee
APPENDIX C
OCR for page 97
APPENDIX C
Committee to Examine the Methoclology for the Assessment of Research Doctorate Programs
Second meeting: August 1-2, 2002
Woocis Hole, Massachusetts
Agencla
August 1
CLOSED SESSION ALL DAY
8:15-8:30 AM Minutes and Summary of Last Meeting Ostriker
9:00-10:00 AM
Panel on Student Educational Processes and Outcomes Lorden
10: 15-11:15 AM Panel to Review Quantitative Measures Stimpson
11:15 AM-12:15 PM Panel on Taxonomy and Interdisciplinarity Solomon
1:15-2:15 PM
Panel on Reputational Measures and Data Presentation Cole, Holland
2:15-3:15 PM Open Issues (examples: GRE scores, report format, Ostriker
nonacademic constituencies)
3:30-5:00 PM Outreach, participants for next meeting
August 2
Ostriker
OPEN SESSION
8:15-9:15 AM Non-academic employers Ostriker
Guest: Paula Stephan, Georgia State University
CLOSED SESSION
9:15-10:15 AM Pilot site strategy Ostriker
10:30 AM-12:00 PM Draft Report Outline Ostriker
97
OCR for page 98
98
Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes
September 5-6, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
APPENDIX C
The entire meeting will be held in Executive Session, since its primary business is to develop recommendations for the
full committee.
Thursday, September 5
9:00-9:30 AM Minutes and Discussion of comments on panel recommendations from the full committee.
9:30-10:30 AM Who are the audiences for this information? What do they need to know?
11:00 AM -12:00 PM Programmatic data
Much of the descriptive data that the Panel has discussed has also been mentioned by the Panel on
Quantitative Measures. Are there particular measures of effectiveness of the graduate program that
we want to be sure is included?
1:00-2:30 PM
Rationale for surveying students
A. Current students
1. How many years past enrollment? Why?
B. Recent graduates
1. How many years past graduation? Why?
2. What does such a survey tell us about the current program?
C. Verification of program-provided information
3:00-5:00 AM Pilot sites. What we want to learn from them.
Each pilot site is a different kind of institution. Do we want to customize questions according to
"mission" (determined either empirically or ex ante). For example, do we want to ask students from
programs whose graduates go predominantly to academic employment different questions from
those whose graduates go primarily to industrial employment?
Friday, September 6
S:30-10:00 AM
10:15AM-12:00 PM
Prioritization of respondents, questions.
What questions are key indicators of the quality and effectiveness of a Ph.D. program? Should they
be customized by field?
Summary of Recommendations and Rationales
OCR for page 99
APPENDIX C
Panel on Taxonomy and Interclisciplinarity
September 11-12, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
99
Because the entire purpose of the meeting is to draft recommendations for consideration of the full Committee, the entire
meeting will be held in executive session.
Wednesday, September 11, 2002
9:00-9:30 AM Goals of this Meeting. Summary of the Full Committee Discussion in Woods Hole
9:30-10:30 AM Principles for Including and Excluding Programs
Should there be a distinction between listing a program and ranking it? Is there any reason to list
programs that don't grant degrees? How can we identify them?
10:45 AM-12:00 PM
1:00-3:00 PM
3:45-4:30 PM
Thursday, September 12
Identifying Programs in Professional Schools
The Panel has made the distinction between programs that primarily educate practitioners and those
that primarily educate researchers. Does this distinction permit us to identify programs in profes-
sional schools that should appear in the final study? Which programs should be included (Staff will
prepare a list of all Ph.D. degrees granted in professional schools.)
Revisiting the Taxonomy
Given the morning's discussion, how comfortable is the Panel with the taxonomy it organized at its
last meeting? What should be changed? What recommendations does the Panel have about treat-
ment of faculty who teach in more than one program? Are we comfortable with how we have
addressed interdisciplinarity? Do we need to address issues of multi-university centers or facilities?
Structuring Pilot Site Trials
The pilot site trials will tell us how well the taxonomy fits each institution. If there are problems
with fit, how do we design consistent rules for adjustment?
9:00-10:00 AM Additional Sources to Test the Taxonomy
The AAU has agreed to test a draft taxonomy with its chief academic officers. Are there other
organizations we should ask? What kind of feedback should we request?
10:15AM-12:00 PM
Recommendations for the full committee
OCR for page 100
100
Panel on Reputational Measures and Presentation of Data
September 1S, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
APPENDIX C
Because the entire purpose of the meeting is to draft recommendations for consideration of the full Committee, the entire
meeting will be held in executive session.
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
8:30-9:00 AM Goals of this Meeting. Minutes of the last meeting.
Summary of the Full Committee Discussion in Woods Hole
9:00-10:30 AM Possible Approaches to a Reputational Measure
At the first panel meeting there was agreement that program reputation should be measured, and that
efforts should be made to better inform the raters of program characteristics. However, the proce-
dures for conduction a reputational survey were not formulated, and some open questions are:
Who should be surveyed?
What program information should be available to the raters?
What is the format of the survey form?
What questions should be asked? Should multiple indicators be used to describe program quality?
11:00 AM-12:00 PM
Special Issues
in addition to the above issues, there are some special concerns, such as:
Can meaningful measures of reputation be generated for the lower half of the ratings? Should all
programs be rated?
How can niche programs or programs in subfields be rated?
12:00-1:00 PM Working Lunch: Measuring Reputation in the Non-Academic Sector
For some fields, such as those in Engineering, a large number of program graduates find employ-
ment in industry and government. Can ways be found to assess the quality of these programs from
the viewpoint of their non-academic "customers"?
1:00-3:00 PM Presentation of Reputational Data
The panel and full committee agreed that no single ordinal ranking reflects the quality of programs
in a field, and other methods should be found to represent reputational data. Several methods have
been proposed, including random halves, bootstrap, and a Bayesian approach. Some of these meth-
ods are illustrated in this agenda book using data fro English programs from the 1995 study. Other
approaches are also described in a memo from Paul Holland, included under tab - IV. Committee
Discussion.
3:15-4:00 PM Pilot Site Trials
While testing different approaches to reputational ratings of a program is limited by the nine pilot
institutions and the number of Ph.D. programs they offer, it might be possible to develop some trials
that will assist in answering some procedural questions.
4:00-5:00 PM
Recommendations to the Full Committee.
OCR for page 101
APPENDIX C
Panel on Review of Quantitative Measures
September 19, 2002
New York, NY
Agencla
101
Because the entire purpose of the meeting is to draft recommendations for consideration of the full Committee, the entire
meeting will be held in executive session.
Thursday, September 19, 2002
9:00-9:30 AM Goals of this Meeting. Minutes of the last meeting.
Summary of the Full Committee Discussion in Woods Hole
9:30-10:15 AM Mission, Institution, and Broad Field Data
The full Committee and the Panel on Student Outcomes and Processes thought that there are some
relevant data at the institutional level (e.g. endowment; student health benefits, housing, and avail-
ability of childcare; and unionization of graduate students). What data should be collected at the
institutional level? At the field level (e.g. humanities, social sciences, etch?
10:15-11:00 AM
Programmatic Data
The Committee at its last meeting encouraged the Panel to develop a large number of program
characteristics that are useful and updateable. Also, the Panel on Student Outcomes and Processes
referred a number of program measures to this Panel, since they would be collected through a
questionnaire for program administrators.
11:15 AM-12:00 PM Special Issues
Measures that need special attention are:
How to measure Time-to-Degree? Completion rates?
How should data on minority students should be collected and presented?
GRE scores: the Committee recommended consideration of a mean or median measure and a
measure of variability (interquartile range or variance).
12:00-1:00 PM
1:00-3:00 PM
3:15-4:00 PM
4:00-5:00 PM
Working Lunch
While munching, it might be useful to think about the significance of the measures we are request-
ing. Are they indicators of quality? Of climate? Of affluence (or lack thereof)? How might we
guide students and administrators to make sense of all these data?
Measures of Faculty Characteristics
These include publications and citations, but do we want measures of faculty demographics, origins,
structure? Who shall we count as faculty? How do we deal with faculty who teach or supervise
dissertations in more than one program?
Pilot Site Trials
Should all pilot sites be asked to answer the same questions stated the same way? Do we want to try
different questions out on different sites?
Recommendations to the Full Committee. Prioritization and Categorization of Measures
OCR for page 102
102
Committee to Examine the Methoclology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
Thircl Meeting: September 30-October 1, 2002
Washington, D.C.
Agencla
September 30, 2002
EXECUTIVE SESSION
8:45-9:45 AM General Issues
PUBLIC SESSION
10:00-11:15 AM
11:15 AM - 12:00 PM
APPENDIX C
Jeremiah O striker
Memo from Brendan Maher
Principle
Diversity
Fields and Disciplines
American Society for Theatre Research and
Association for Theatre in Higher Education Arts
National Communication Association
American Society for Microbiology
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business
Diversity in Doctoral Education
Thomas Postlewait
Bill Balthrop
Gail Cassell
Dan LeClair
· Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities Gumecindo Salas
· Council of Historically Black Graduate Schools Irene Johnson
· National Black Graduate Student Association Theodore Bunch, Jr.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
12:30 - 1:30 PM Report of the Panel on Taxonomy and Interdisciplinarity Walter Cohen, Panel Co-chair
Frank Solomon, Panel Co-chair
1:30-2:30 PM Report of the Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes Joan Lorden, Panel Chair
2:30-3:30 PM Report of the Panel on Quantitative Measures Catharine Stimpson, Panel Chair
3:30-4:30 PM Report of Panel on Reputational Measures and Jonathan Cole, Panel Co-chair
Data Presentation Paul Holland, Panel Co-chair
Tuesday, October 1, 2002
EXECUTIVE SESSION
8:30-10:00 AM
10:15-10:45 AM Outreach
Pilot Site Strategy
10:45 AM - 12:00 PM Further discussion of issues arising from the Panel reports
OCR for page 103
APPENDIX C
Committee to Examine the Methoclology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
March 26-2S, 2003
Irvine, California
Agencla
The entire meeting will be held in Executive Session
Wednesday, March 26, 2003, Newport Room
2:10 - 2:20PM Minutes of Sept. 30- Oct. 1, 2002, Meeting
2:20 - 2:45 PM
Bias Discussion
2:45 - 5:00 PM Findings from the Pilot Trials Charlotte Kuh, Jim Voytuk
Thursday, March 27, 2003
8:15 - 10:30 AM Discussion of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations
10:45 AM- 12:00 PM Writing Groups:
1. Student Outcomes/Quantitative Measures
2. Reputational Measures
3. Taxonomy
4. Extra Breakout Room
1:00 - 5:00 PM
Friday, March 28, 2003
8:15 - 11:30 AM
103
Newport Room
Crystal Cove Room
Laguna Room
Emerald Bay Room
Writing Groups: Breakout Room
Reconvene in the Newport Room
· Discussion of report text
· Remaining tasks
· Next steps
OCR for page 104
104
Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
J. Erik Jonnson Woocis Hole Study Center
July 31 - August 1, 2003, Meeting
Agencla
Thursday, July 31, 2003
8:45 AM
9:00 AM
9:30 AM
Friday, August 1, 2003
8:30 AM
10:00 AM
12:00 PM
APPENDIX C
Minutes of March 26-27, 2003, Meeting
NRC Review Process Next Steps
Discussion on "Response to Report Review"
Chapter-by-Chapter
Findings since the Last Meeting
a. Relating Qualitative to Quantitative Measures
b. Student Questionnaires
c. Outside Raters
· Fields for Outside Raters
· What Kind of People Are We Looking for?
The Next Committee
· Proposal Major Points
· Possible Committee Members
Adjourn.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
executive session
